Historically, human heart valves have been replaced using open heart surgery involving the heart/lung machine and excision of the native aortic valve and suture placement of the new valve prosthesis. New technology has been developed to enable valve replacement “percutaneously,” or through a “transapical” procedure, using a device with a valve inside a stent placed within the patient's native aortic valve. Percutaneous valve procedures pertain to making small incisions in the skin to allow direct access to peripheral vessels or body channels to insert catheters. Transapical valve procedures pertain to making a small incision in or near the apex of a heart to allow valve access. Transapical procedures present an advance in cardiac care as they provide faster patient recovery, shorter procedure time, and larger addressable patient population without the need for sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass. These procedures still require hemostasis and pacing during the procedure and generally utilize sutures for closure. The distinction between percutaneous valve procedures and minimally invasive procedures is also highlighted in a recent position statement of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI; Vassiliades Jr. T A, Block P C, Cohn L H, Adams D H, Borer J S, Feldman T, Holmes D R, Laskey W K, Lytle B W, Mack M F, Williams D O. The clinical development of percutaneous heart valve technology: a position statement by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129:970-6). Because minimally invasive approaches require smaller incisions, they generally allow for faster patient recovery with less pain and bodily trauma. This, in turn, reduces the medical costs and the overall disruption to the life of the patient. The use of minimally invasive approaches, however, introduces new complexities to surgery. An inherent difficulty in the minimally invasive percutaneous approach is the limited space that is available within the vasculature. Unlike open heart surgery, percutaneous heart surgery offers a surgical field that is only as large as the diameter of the blood vessel used for access. Consequently, the introduction of tools and prosthetic devices becomes a great deal more complicated as compared to open-chest surgeries. The device must be dimensioned and configured to permit it to be introduced into the vasculature, maneuvered therethrough, and positioned at a desired location. This may involve passage through significant convolutions, at some distance from the initial point of introduction, before placement can be made at the intended site. The existing technology is still in an early phase of development, as is the procedure for placement of these devices. One route of access, through the femoral arteries, is limited because of vascular disease involving these vessels and the size of the devices to be placed is largely relative to the small diameter vessels. Transapical placement, through the apex of the left ventricle, has been the preferred approach in many patients because there are less vascular complications, but there are problems such as bleeding from the left ventricular apex requiring difficult suture closure, and a thoracotomy incision that can be painful and lead to difficult recovery and prolonged hospital stay for the patient. What is needed are improved devices and methods for carrying out minimally invasive procedures.